DOCIBIENT RESUME

ED 079 779 cs sob j45

AUTHOR Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs TITLE Criticism: Ephemeral and Enduring..

PUB DATE Apr 73_ . NOTE 14p.; Paper-presented at the Annual Meeting of tip Central States Speech Assn..(Minneapolis, April, 1973)

DRS PRICE 14P40.65 BC-S3 29 DESCRIPTORS *Analytical Criticism; Communication (T)ought Transfer); Cultural Context; *Literature Reviews; *Persuasive Discourse; *Rhetoric; *Rhetorical Criticism

ABSTRACT' In spite of the material seeking to define rhetoric and approaches to its study, few attempts have been made-to stipulate gmaities of *rhetorical acts-meriting critical attentigau_pr critical outcomes that serve social or professiopal functiops._ **Aerial criticise, to be useful, must pastor. a unique Junction logrimiciety as as for the speech communicationdiscip4ipe..Some distimtite must beillide between those critical acts deeignsd for a- social function and those intended to contribute to'rhetorical theory..Tbe foundation. of rhetorical theory lies in Rex-hart Michelins' belief that rhetorical criticism, rather than being copceined wit') permanence, beauty, or effects as such, regards rhetorical-acts as symbolicACts; thepurpose of rhetorical criticism is to discover and explain the symbolid _proceises available to huaan'beings as revealed in these 'acts. .(RN) F I L M E D

OSEARTNIENT OF SISALTN. EDUCATION& weLpmen NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HASSEEN REPRO DuCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIGIN ATING IT POINTS OF VIEPtOROPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYft EMIL INSTITUTE OF SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

CriticisE: Epilemerl and Enduring

lonaoseovi ro orntoourA Two tom mosolo Turomm. Ha eon mum Err Ka.r12,rn Kohrs aaraiibell Associate Professor of Ithetoric: 1Car-1-3112-Fohrsi_. Depart:lent of English, no wow on. u,eneral -Literature and swum oT toecitoolo mono now,- Abet aria woos ouToot not at swum ot- GOMM PEESNIENSIk OF DIE COMIlett State University of -Nevi- York ONINEOL^ Binghamton In 1 ':Y70, addressingtheprospect of rhetoric, Karl

Wallace followed numerouspredecessorsinlamenting the

state of criticism. He wrote: "-It seemsto besk,-;enerally. failures 'agreed among rhetoriciansthat one of their signal

in the- laSt 70 :yearsis-the failure. toproduce in-any

significant numbers practicingcritics of public discourse.

I would add that notonly have we failed toproduce a

significant' body of -criticism, but we haVe failed to fulfill

both Oar- social and professionalfunotions.2 I _shah argue

that these failures -canbe traced to the waysin which- the

objects aLd_ objectives ofcriticism have been defined and _ functions to -a confusionbetween-critical acts serving social Contributions -andcritical ac ts capable ofmaking s ignifiCaAt

to rhet o ric al theory. 'Despite numerous essays definingrhetoric, explicating

methodology, .and arguingthe merits of variouscritical - atteapts either= perspectives, tier-ehave been few systeriatic

to define thosequalitieS and characteristicsof rhetorical stipulate critical act-s- meritingcritical attention or to outcomes that serve social orprofessionalfunctions.3

The traditional answer, that-critics must describe, analyze,

interpret, and evaluate,is inadeauate because itfails to

indicate what should bedescribed, analyzed, interpreted,

4 - and evaluated and towhat-end. Other answers sugesti-ng

the contributions -criticism maymake to historical or 5 -emiiirical research are alsoinadequate. If criticism is to

(1) be legitimized, it iiusthave intrinsic worth; it 1:.ust perform a unique function_for*society and for our discipline.

The historical burden under-which raetorical criticism labors'is the definition ofthe objects-and objectives of- tritical inquiry enuncictedby Herbert Wiohelns and_enacted in what Edwin Blacklabelled "neo-Aristotelian" methodology. Wichelnst influential Statementbears re:peating: LETetorical criticis is not concerned with -ipermanende nor yet With beauty. It is concerned With effect. It regards-a speech as acommunication to a specific audience, andholds its business to be the analysis and appreciationof -the orator's method of imparting his ideasto his hearers,0 .

This definition excludesenduring wasterpi--ces, literary works,. genres or movements,and discourses.taat persuade tarougk methods other than byinparting_fdeas: lethod-

ologically, it excludesconsiderations af truth, long-term

effects, aesthetic quality, andmost significantly, appraisal . and evaluation of the endsbeing advocated. Th.67taSt Of the rhetorical critic is to examineindividual oral works from

a single sourcein relation to animmediate-audience -and explain their success inproducing instrumental effects

through imparting ideas. Itls'as if the fledgling critic

were asked to take anoath that might readsouething like

this: I do solemnly swear to devoteall my efforts to

explaining the 'persuasive effectsof advertisers,

politicians, and propagandists. I-promise, against

all my natural proclivities,to be fascinateday the

dull, garrdlous, repetitivepronouncements on head- .-

(2) acues, body odors, foreignaid, welfare, anti-

coadunism, auti-pollutioAl and

tae.like. 6hould'a metapuor a) ?ear, I prouibe to

ignore it. Should ,a speech endure, I promise_ to

neglect it. All this Ido solemnly swear so that a separate discipline of speech communication,snail'

not perish the earth.

Of course, I overstate the case. iJevertheless, despite- eLlendations.legitimizing. the criticism of writtenrhetorict7 8 9.the'objects of critical movements$ and exhortative acts inquiry still remain, to use ErnestWrage's apt phrase;

"fugitive-literature."19Their importance, like their effects, .is specific, instrumental, andimmediatein a word, ephemeral.

A critical l-dilemma results. On the one hand, the analysis and evaluation of _ephemeral,contemporary, rhetor-

. ical acts serves a vital function forsociety. On the

other hand, like ,the acts themselves,the criticism of them, particularly as mandated by Wichelnsand-developed in neo-

Aristotelian methodology, is itselfephemeral, i.e., without 11 enduring historical or rhetorical significance. It should

come as no surprise, then,that the. Speech Communication ASsociation has not given an award-to a critical work

fulfilling Wichelns'.definition or. that criticsdo not write

significant numbers of ephemeralcritiqueS explaining the

instrumental effects of ephemeral events.

If this situation is to change, adistinction must be

( 3 ) made between criJ;ical acts designed to perform a social function And those inended tGo make enduring contribu*jons to rhetorical theory. ilei:mrding social criticism, I have little quarrel with Wichelns' definition of the objects of critical inauiry, especially_ when expanded.to include written and exhortative rhetoric and .persuasivecaliDaigns.12

'But-profeSsional journals are not the a.,3propriate vehibles nor are orofessionia colleagues the appropriate audience.

The Social criticism of ephemeral/ contenpoary events belongs in the mass media, where much of it how appears, and. he audience it needs to reach' is the general public.

It would bb preferable if this criticises were written .by trained rhetorical critics rather than by joUrnalists who vary widely in their'critical Skills.- liethodologically, however, the strict application of neoAristotelian procedures must be abandoned. The social function of criticism is to raise issues and encourage public discussion. This requires that critics appraise both the means used in and the-ends advocated by rhetorical acts. and the immediate and long

, range effects ofboth.13Social critics of public discourse need professional encouragement to follow the precedents set by prominent historians,- economists, political scientists, and others who critique specific proposals and policies of

;articular administrations or interest groups in the mass media. BeWever, very little, if any, of this social crit icism will have enduring value. Social critics nearly always produce statements that are bound to particular times, issues, and situations. In fact, social criticism may be defined as

(4) criticism evaluating the ways in which issues are formulated,

policies justified, and theeffectEi of bothon society ata

particular historical moment. Such social criticism is

,absolutely vital, but as social criticism itwild' not be

enduring; its importance and its functions are imdediate' 14 and'epheMeral,

Ironically, a definition of the acts .se `riling, critical

inquiry is only tangentially relevant to the second type of

criticism directed to colleagues through professional

publications. This "academic" or "professional" criticism Can make an enduring contribution to-the discipline whether

or not theacts it examines are trivial ephemera orlenduring

masterpiecest-oral or written, argumentative',- or exhortative,

aesthetic or persuasive, single events or' movements, confron-

tations or rational discussions, verbal or non-verbal. What

must be specified are the factors that constitute critical

excellence and the critical outcomes or objectives that

Contribute to rhetorical' theory. At this-level, criticism

and theoty-are indistinguishable. The-most economic and forceful= method for specifying

significant outcomes and describing critical excellence is

the examination of masterpieces or touchstones of criticism. 15 Consider with me Kenneth Burke's essay on aein Kampf,

.Richard,Hofstadter's essay onhe paranoid style in American

politics,16and Edwin Black's critiques of the Coatesville 17 Address and. of the "cancer of communism" metaphor in the 18 rhetoric of the Radical Right. None of the rhetorical

acts criticized is self-evidently a masterpiece. Mein

(5) 1alalpf, is not read forits, style which isexecrable;19 rather its significancearises out of thesociohistorical catastrophe into whichit may give insight. Similarly, the Black are political discourses =examined ,by Hofstadter and

quite undistinguished. Pinally, whatever the intrinsic

.merits of the CoatesvilleAddress, it had beenforgotten.?°'

But in the hands of thesecritics, the enduringrhetorical

lignificance of these actsbecomes evident, and each critique

makes an enduringcontriblition torhetorical theory. In

the hands of Burke,Mein Kaupf becomes anillustration through which the readerexperiences and understands the

processes ofsymbolically transformingthe itlythic principles Christianity, into of one `universe ofthought, in this case, In the hands of a potent ideology,in this case, Nazism. Hofstadter, the apparentlyunrelated statements of the antiMasonic movement, theantiCatholic movement, and the

discourses of Joseph McCarthy, amongothers, are linked to

reveal a powerful genre ofrhetoric unified bysubstantive/

stylistic features that transcendparticular periods or 21 explication of the ideas issues. In the hands of Black, an

and attitudes of theRadical Right synthesized orcondensed potential in the "cancer ofcommunism" metaphor reveals the ideological force of anymetaphor, and his treatment ofthe

Coatesville Address discloses a processby which the rights

and wrongs of a particularevent and the _ssues of apartic

ular historicalmoment aretranscended symbolically to form

an enduring moralstatement. In each case, what we learn about the specific rhetoricalacts is secondary; they become

(6) illustrations or mean.: tnrou6A whichthe reader apprehends the nature of symbolic processesthemselves. And that, in brief, is the function of criticism forthe discipline. The enduring contributions of criticism torhetorical theory are the disco7ery of formsthat permit and evoke 22 participation, f processes that transcend argumentative 23 controversies and immediate situations, of transformations 24 that restructure perceptiohs and create newperspectives; of syntheses, ofsubstantive/stylistic-stratagems that form 25 26 genres of rhetoric, and of archetypal forms of interaction.

Let me emphasiie that each of thesecontributions is a direct. result*of critical insight; the symbolic processesare.nbt

self-evident in the rhetorical acts themselves. The objects

and objectives of thiS second form ofrhetorical criticism

may be expressed in a paraphrase ofWichelns' familiar

statement: Rhetorical criticism is not concerned with permanence

or with beauty or with effects Ett- It regards

-rhetorical acts as symbolic acts and holds its

business to be the discovery and explication ofthe

symbolic processes availableto human beings as revealed and iliUstrated in these acts.

Such criticism is, in my opinion, the very foundation of

rhetorical the ory. The obvious question that remains concerns therelation-

ship between these two types of criticism.'Although the

preceding discussion treats them as discrete forms,they

(7) represent two strong tendencies in criticism that arenever entirely separated. What-I have termed "academic" or

"professional" criticism has longrange cultural Liplications

and is frequently motivated, at least in part, bya desire to understand symbolic processes with important socialcon _ sequences.- At its best, social criticism is an a-o)lication

of the concepts developed in academic criticism whichtests, refines, and elaborates symbolic forms andprocesses.211 In some cases, social criticism suggests directions for academic criticism by pointing to areas in which -fundamentalsymbolic 29 processes exist or may be most evident. Despite these interrelationships, aowever, I believe that the distinctions betwecn these two forms of criticism are salient and that the confusion between tae social and profesdional fulictJ.ohs of criticism ia theoretical and pedagogical barrier:to the development of this area of our discipline.

These, then, are the two direction in which Ibelieve rhetorical criticism should go. But I am not sanguine about their prospects, for what disturbs me most isthat Iam not sure our discipline values rhetorical criticism at all.

What, for example, is the critic to make of LloydBitzer's statement that "In the best of all possible worlds, there

would be communication,perhaps, but no rhetoric . ."?3° I interpret this as expressing a distrust of symbolic processes and a distaste for man as symboluser and abuser.

If these *attitudes are characteristic, it is doubtfulthat rhetorical criticism will ever serve a vital function for society or make a significant contribution toour discipline. x'ootnotes

Punda..lentals of Rhetoric," The Prospect of Anetol-iced.

Lloyd P 8itzer and Edwin Black (E4,:lewood Cliffs, 14.J.: irentice-Hall, 1971), p. 17.

2Wayne Boothargues =this pointstrongly in "Tie Scope- of Rhetoric Today,"ibid. See particularly po.113-114.

3Themost systematic effort isEdwin Black,AitioAcy.1 Crit-

icism: A Study in 'Method = (new /or?;: 1965). Other

effort's include Albert J. Croft, "The Functions of Rhetorical

Criticism," 4uarterl,y Journal of .§:422211, 42 (October 1956),

pp. 233-291; Walter R.Fisher, "Method in Rhetorical Criticism," ^Southern Speech Journal, 35 (Winter 1969), pp. 101-109; Iorel

D. Reid, "The Perils of Rhetorical Criticism," uar-t1

Journal of Soeech, 30(December 1944),pp. 416-422.

4These critical functions are most fully developed by Robert

Cathcart, Post ComMunication: Criticism and Evaluation(New

York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966). The question of critical objectives

is treated via discussion of the standards by whichspeeches

may be evaluated, pp. 89-111.

5iIarie Hochmuth Nichols, Rnetoric and 'Criticism (Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1963), pp. 19-33; John Waite

Bowers, "The Pre-Scientific function of Rhetorical Criticism,"

Essays, on Rhetorical Criticism ed. Thomas R. Nilsen (New York:

Random liouse, 1968), pp. 126-145.

6"The Literary Criticism of Oratory," R22119 Criticism: Jet hods

and Materials ea. William A. Linsley (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C.

Brown, 1968), p. 32. (J6 4v, York: 7A. Craig Baird, Rhetoric: APhilosap.licalIkala

Apnald iress,1965), pp.,5-10;_lbnald 0.Bryant,'"Rhetpriq: of Soeeen, 39- Its 2unction and ItsScope," vuut4z.ly Journal (December 1963), p. 407; Black, pp.10-11.

social and rnest J. Wrage,"2ublic Address: A study in

Intellectual History,";i22.4.terly Journal of§peceli, 33

(December 1947), pp. 451-457;'Leland 7i. Griffin,"The

rhetoric of Historical.1Ovements," 4uarterly Journal of

Speech, 38 (April 1952), pp.184-188.

9Blackt_pp. 138-147.

10Wrage, p. 101.

methodology incapable of 11I take it asself-evident-that a appraising the ends ofdiso,Jurse or of evaluatint,loiv-term

effects cannot have enduringhistorical value (see Black, coLfines itself to pp. 60-78) andthat a methodology that have explaining immediate,instrumental effects cannot to De enduring rhetoricalsignificance unless rhetoric is- defined as the art ofsuccessful manipulation.

12A strong- argument canbe made for expandingthe scope o: variety the objects of socialcriticism to include a wide

of acts disseminatedthrough al]. media. See, for example,

Boota, 92. cit.

13This position is.central to the argument aboutcriticisms bell, of Nixon'sVietnamization Address. See Kar1yn.4ohrs Ca "'Conventional WisdomTraditionalnorm': A Rejoinder," and Forbes I. Hill, "Reply toProfessor Campbell," .ivarterlz

(3.0)

0. Journal of Speech, 58(December '1972'), pp. 451-460.

'14The criticisms found in Wayne Broakriede and.Robert L.

6cOtt, Moments in tie Rhetoric ofthe Cold War (New York:

Random House, 1970),KarlynKohrs Campbell,_Oritiouesof

Conte 'porary Rhetoric(13elmant, Calif.: Wadsworth,1972), and Robert L. Scott andWayne Brockriede, The Rhetorfx.of

Black Power (New York: Harper & Aowl1969). illustrate the

imrortance and thetranscience of works of social criticism.

15"The Rhetoric of Hitler s Philosophy' of Literary

Form (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniii.-2ress, 196,7); pp.

191-220.

16The Paranoid Style in American. Politicsand Other Essays

(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966)., pp. 3-40.

17Rhetorical Criticism, pp.z78-90.

18"The Second Persona," Quarterly Journal of Sar3h,

(April 1970), pp. 109-119:

19See translator!S note,- Adolph Hitler, dein Kampf, Vols. I

and II, _trans. Ralph Aannheim(New York: iloughton-lafflin,

1943).

20Black,Rhetorical Criticism, p. 82.

21Hofstadter describes the substantive/stylistic synthesis as

follows: "It is imoortant to bear in mind,noweverl'that

mile any systed of beliefs can beeSooused in the paranoid style, there are certain beliefs which seem tobe espoused

almost entirely in thiswai." (fodhote 2, p. 5) -22JohnRatabun argues this point of view and applies it to the

rhetoric of Aartin Luther Xing, Jr. in "The Problem of

Judgment and Effect in Historical Criticism: A Proposed

Solution," Western Speech, 33 (Summer 1969), pp. 146-159.

Other examples include Richard B. Gregg, "The Ego-Function

of the Rhetoric of Protest," Philosophy & Rhetoric, 4

(Spring 1971), pp. 71-91, and Aichael Osborn, "Archetypal

Aetaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family," Quarterly

Journal-of Speech, 53 (April 1967), pp. 115-126.

23See, forexample, Black's treatment of Newman's ApoloAia

. and Plato's dialogues _a Rhetorical Criticism, pp. 151-157.

24Seeparticularly Kenneth Burke's treatment of the relation

between theology and logolagy in The Rhetoric of Religion:

Studies in Logology (Boston: I.;acon Press, 1961), pp. 1-42.

An attempt to take this critical aparoach is made in

Karlyn Kohrs Caopbell, "The Rhetoric of Radical Black

Nationalista: A Case Study in-Self-Conscious Criticism,"

Central-States Speech Journal, 22-(Pal1 1971), pp. 151-160.

25Karlyn Kohrs Caopbell, The Rhetoric of Women's Liberation;

An Oxymoron," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59 (February 1973),.

pp; 74-86.

26Theodore Otto Windt, Jr., "The Diatribe: Last Aesort for

Protest;" Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58 (February 1972),

pp. 1-14.

27Thisis evident in the critical touchstones discussed.

Burke is concerned to understand the "snake oil" of one of

(12) the most powerful medicine Men of the 20thCentury; flack

.remarks taut the continued existence" of a. profoundracial

problem gives contemoorary force to Chapman'swords; both Hofstadterand Black illuminate the sorts of rhetoricthat

resultn Iwitch-hunting" activities.

28Robert L. Scott's treatment of Aixon's Inaugural

.Address is illustrative. His criticism is a skillful application and elaboration of the role of metaphor in a

rhetorical act. (See "Rhetoric That Postures: An Intrinsic

Reading of Richard 1.1. Nixon's Inaugural Address," Western

Speech, 34 (Winter 1970), pp. 46-52.)

290ne example of this process is Scott end Brockriede's

analysis of Hubert Humphrey's NAACP Convention speech.

Their view of "Black Power" as a powerful and ambiguous

phrase that calls for rhetorical definition suggests a

further critical statement exploring the rhetorical signifi-

'canoe of the symbolic process of definitionitself. (See

"Hubert $umpnrey Paced' the Black Power Issue," The Rhetoric

of Black PoWer, pp. 74-83.)

30-bloyd 1. Bitzer,'° she Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy &

Rhe toric, I (January 1968), p. 13.

(13) -